The Windy City YR Recent Postshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/rss/
A View From the &quot;Right&quot; Side of ChicagoTue, 20 Jan 2015 17:17:18 -0500en-us2015 Real State of the Unionhttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2015/01/2015-real-state-of-the-union/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2015/01/2015-real-state-of-the-union/#commentsTue, 20 Jan 2015 17:17:18 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=722

United States Population: 321,362,789 (approximate)

Population Growth Rate: 0.8% (slowest growth since the Depression era)

Population Below Poverty Line: 45.3 million people (14.5% of the population)

Per capita GDP: $53,000 (IMF) or $52,800(CIA) [range of 9th - 14th in the world]

Inflation Rate: 1.6% average monthly rate in 2014

2014 National Government Revenue: $3.02 trillion

2014 National Government Expenditures: $$3.5 trillion

2014 Deficit: $483 billion

Current Total Debt: $18,080,794,482,225.47 (1/16/15)

Current Total Debt Held by Public: $12,971,502,433,051.37

2014 Deficit to GDP: 2.8%

Total Debt to GDP: 107.1%

Public Debt to GDP: 73.5%

Total U.S. Exports: $2.147 trillion (Jan - Nov. 2014)

Total U.S. Imports: $2.608 trillion (Jan - Nov. 2014)

Top 5 Trade Partners: Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany

Immigration: Appx. 40.8 million foreign born people currently reside in the United States;

779,929 persons naturalized in 2013;

990,553 people became legal permanent residents;

69,909 persons were admitted to the United States as refugees;

25,199 individuals were granted asylum, including 15,266 who were granted asylum affirmatively by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 9,933 who were granted asylum defensively by the Department of Justice. The leading countries of nationality for persons granted either affirmative or defensive asylum were China, Egypt, and Ethiopia.

Emigration: Approximately 6.8 million American citizens lived abroad as of Jan. 2013

Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.: 11.3 million in 2013 according to Pew Hispanic Center.

Deportations: 438,421 individuals in FY2013 The leading countries of origin for those removed were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Labor Force:156.129 million (62.7% participation rate)

Employment-population ratio: 59.2%

Civilian labor force participation rate: 62.8%

National Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (Jan 2013 about 8.7 million people officially)

Bankruptcies: 963,739 (-12% from a year earlier)

U.S. Properties in Foreclosure: 642,927 (banks repossessed 327,069 homes, down 29 percent from 2013. Completed foreclosures declined 69 percent from their peak of 1.05 million in 2010.)

Per capita GDP: $53,000 (IMF) or $52,800(CIA) [range of 9th - 14th in the world]

Inflation Rate: 1.6% average monthly rate in 2014

2014 National Government Revenue: $3.02 trillion

2014 National Government Expenditures: $$3.5 trillion

2014 Deficit: $483 billion

Current Total Debt: $18,080,794,482,225.47 (1/16/15)

Current Total Debt Held by Public: $12,971,502,433,051.37

2014 Deficit to GDP: 2.8%

Total Debt to GDP: 107.1%

Public Debt to GDP: 73.5%

Total U.S. Exports: $2.147 trillion (Jan - Nov. 2014)

Total U.S. Imports: $2.608 trillion (Jan - Nov. 2014)

Top 5 Trade Partners: Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany

Immigration: Appx. 40.8 million foreign born people currently reside in the United States;

779,929 persons naturalized in 2013;

990,553 people became legal permanent residents;

69,909 persons were admitted to the United States as refugees;

25,199 individuals were granted asylum, including 15,266 who were granted asylum affirmatively by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 9,933 who were granted asylum defensively by the Department of Justice. The leading countries of nationality for persons granted either affirmative or defensive asylum were China, Egypt, and Ethiopia.

Emigration: Approximately 6.8 million American citizens lived abroad as of Jan. 2013

Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.: 11.3 million in 2013 according to Pew Hispanic Center.

Deportations: 438,421 individuals in FY2013 The leading countries of origin for those removed were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Labor Force:156.129 million (62.7% participation rate)

Employment-population ratio: 59.2%

Civilian labor force participation rate: 62.8%

National Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (Jan 2013 about 8.7 million people officially)

Bankruptcies: 963,739 (-12% from a year earlier)

U.S. Properties in Foreclosure: 642,927 (banks repossessed 327,069 homes, down 29 percent from 2013. Completed foreclosures declined 69 percent from their peak of 1.05 million in 2010.)

]]>Final Reflection on GOP's 2014 Winshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2015/01/new-year-new-congress/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2015/01/new-year-new-congress/#commentsTue, 06 Jan 2015 14:59:46 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=714This young Republican reflects on the life and career of Judy Baar Topinkahttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/12/this-young-republican-reflects-on-the-life-and-career-of-judy-baar-topinka/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/12/this-young-republican-reflects-on-the-life-and-career-of-judy-baar-topinka/#commentsWed, 10 Dec 2014 12:25:00 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=7102014 Illinois Election Day cheat sheethttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/11/2014-illinois-election-day-cheat-sheet/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/11/2014-illinois-election-day-cheat-sheet/#commentsTue, 04 Nov 2014 06:30:48 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=701Control of the United States Senate
Democrats currently hold 53 Senate seats with an additional 2 Independent senators who caucus with them while the GOP holds 45 seats. To win control of the Senate, Republicans need 51 senators, or 6 more than they have today.
There are 36 seats up for election this year, 11 of which are nearly certain to remain Democratic and 13 nearly certain to remain Republican while an additional 4 are very likely to switch from Democratic control to Republican. Assuming the prior statement is true, Republicans need to have a net gain of 2 seats from the 8 remaining races, 2 of which are currently held by the GOP the other 6 by Democrats.
Takeaway: There is a very good chance we will not know if the GOP has won control of the Senate tonight. Many races may be too close to call while others end up in run-offs. If it comes down to Alaska, their polls don't even close until midnight in Chicago. Locally, Dick Durbin is expected to win by double digits over his GOP challenger, Jim Oberweis.Control of the United States House of Representatives
Republicans currently hold 233 House seats, Democrats hold 199 and there are 3 vacancies. Democrats would need a net gain of 19 to win control of the House.
Every two years, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election. According to Real Clear Politics' average of polls, the Republican majority is safe and the GOP should safely win 226 seats (losing one GOP seat but making up for it by winning a Dem seat in New York) with another 30 categorized as "toss-ups." Twenty of those 30 toss up races are currently held by Democrats. Most polls have Republicans picking up at least 5 seats and perhaps as many at 15. If the GOP picks up at least 9 seats, it will have the largest U.S. House majority since 1946. A pick up of 13 will give the GOP that largest margin in the House since 1928.
Takeaway: Republicans will remain a majority in the House but the exact margin will not be known tonight. Locally, the race to watch is IL-1o between incumbent Demcorat, Brad Schneider, and the former Republican Congressman in that district, Bob Dold. Races in the IL-11th, IL-12, IL-13 and IL-17 are worth keeping and eye on. All except IL-13 are currently held by Democrats.Illinois Governor
This is an extremely close race between incumbent Governor, Pat Quinn, and his Republican challenger, Bruce Rauner. Polling data shows a statistically tied race, with a slight advantage to Quinn. Chicago and Cook County usually report results before the rest of the state so expect Quinn to have huge lead out of the gate. Exit poll data and Rauner's numbers in Chicago and suburban Cook County should provide key insights as to whether their strategy is panning out or if they have to hope that collar county and downstate turnout and support was gigantic.
Takeaway: We will probably have a winner by the end of the night. If Quinn's get-out-the-vote operation in Chicago and Cook County replicated it's 2010 success, we could know by 10 or 11pm that he has won. If his campaign workers fell short of their goals and team Rauner fulfilled their promise to turn out 10,000 volunteers across the state to create their own get-out-the-vote army, we could be waiting until midnight or beyond for rural and small town votes to be reported.Illinois Statewide Officeholders
Democrats Lisa Madigan and Jesse White are each expected to be re-elected as State Attorney General and Secretary of State respectively while Judy Baar Topinka should easily cruise to reelection as State Comptroller. The only real race in this bracket is for State Treasurer between former Republican House Minority Leader, Tom Cross, and Democrat State Senator, Mike Frerichs.
Takeaway: Just as in the race for governor, we may not know the result of this race until late in the evening unless the Cook County/Chicago Democratic turnout machine was in over drive.Illinois State Senate
Democrats currently hold a 40-19 super-majority in the State Senate. Only 7 seats are being actively contested tonight, 6 Democrat, 1 Republican. It is mathematically impossible for Republicans to win control of the State Senate (they would need a net gain of 11 seats and even if they win every one on the ballot, they would be 5 short). Best case scenario, Republicans hold their seat in the 24th district and find a way to win 5 of the other 6 competitive races and break the Democrat super majority. This is unlikely.
Takeaway: While John Cullerton will still hold a super majority in the State Senate, the margin might be less than it is today and it will be interesting to see how his dynamic Republican opponent, Stephanie Linares, does in head-to-head match up in his north-side, Chicago district. Illinois State House
Democrats currently hold a 71-47 super majority in the State House.
All 118 seats are up for election tonight, though only 48 are contested. Republicans would need a net gain of 13 to win an outright majority and end Michael Madigan's reign as Speaker of the House. This is unlikely. Republican minority leader, Jim Durkin, is hoping to have a net gain of at least one to break the super majority and give the Republican minority a more robust voice in state legislation.
Takeaway: Mike Madigan will remain Speaker of the House and it is unclear if he will still have his super majority or if he will lose a couple seats. We may not know for sure tonight.
In conclusion, tonight may not have a real conclusion.
Happy Election Day, everyone!]]>Control of the United States Senate
Democrats currently hold 53 Senate seats with an additional 2 Independent senators who caucus with them while the GOP holds 45 seats. To win control of the Senate, Republicans need 51 senators, or 6 more than they have today.
There are 36 seats up for election this year, 11 of which are nearly certain to remain Democratic and 13 nearly certain to remain Republican while an additional 4 are very likely to switch from Democratic control to Republican. Assuming the prior statement is true, Republicans need to have a net gain of 2 seats from the 8 remaining races, 2 of which are currently held by the GOP the other 6 by Democrats.
Takeaway: There is a very good chance we will not know if the GOP has won control of the Senate tonight. Many races may be too close to call while others end up in run-offs. If it comes down to Alaska, their polls don't even close until midnight in Chicago. Locally, Dick Durbin is expected to win by double digits over his GOP challenger, Jim Oberweis.Control of the United States House of Representatives
Republicans currently hold 233 House seats, Democrats hold 199 and there are 3 vacancies. Democrats would need a net gain of 19 to win control of the House.
Every two years, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election. According to Real Clear Politics' average of polls, the Republican majority is safe and the GOP should safely win 226 seats (losing one GOP seat but making up for it by winning a Dem seat in New York) with another 30 categorized as "toss-ups." Twenty of those 30 toss up races are currently held by Democrats. Most polls have Republicans picking up at least 5 seats and perhaps as many at 15. If the GOP picks up at least 9 seats, it will have the largest U.S. House majority since 1946. A pick up of 13 will give the GOP that largest margin in the House since 1928.
Takeaway: Republicans will remain a majority in the House but the exact margin will not be known tonight. Locally, the race to watch is IL-1o between incumbent Demcorat, Brad Schneider, and the former Republican Congressman in that district, Bob Dold. Races in the IL-11th, IL-12, IL-13 and IL-17 are worth keeping and eye on. All except IL-13 are currently held by Democrats.Illinois Governor
This is an extremely close race between incumbent Governor, Pat Quinn, and his Republican challenger, Bruce Rauner. Polling data shows a statistically tied race, with a slight advantage to Quinn. Chicago and Cook County usually report results before the rest of the state so expect Quinn to have huge lead out of the gate. Exit poll data and Rauner's numbers in Chicago and suburban Cook County should provide key insights as to whether their strategy is panning out or if they have to hope that collar county and downstate turnout and support was gigantic.
Takeaway: We will probably have a winner by the end of the night. If Quinn's get-out-the-vote operation in Chicago and Cook County replicated it's 2010 success, we could know by 10 or 11pm that he has won. If his campaign workers fell short of their goals and team Rauner fulfilled their promise to turn out 10,000 volunteers across the state to create their own get-out-the-vote army, we could be waiting until midnight or beyond for rural and small town votes to be reported.Illinois Statewide Officeholders
Democrats Lisa Madigan and Jesse White are each expected to be re-elected as State Attorney General and Secretary of State respectively while Judy Baar Topinka should easily cruise to reelection as State Comptroller. The only real race in this bracket is for State Treasurer between former Republican House Minority Leader, Tom Cross, and Democrat State Senator, Mike Frerichs.
Takeaway: Just as in the race for governor, we may not know the result of this race until late in the evening unless the Cook County/Chicago Democratic turnout machine was in over drive.Illinois State Senate
Democrats currently hold a 40-19 super-majority in the State Senate. Only 7 seats are being actively contested tonight, 6 Democrat, 1 Republican. It is mathematically impossible for Republicans to win control of the State Senate (they would need a net gain of 11 seats and even if they win every one on the ballot, they would be 5 short). Best case scenario, Republicans hold their seat in the 24th district and find a way to win 5 of the other 6 competitive races and break the Democrat super majority. This is unlikely.
Takeaway: While John Cullerton will still hold a super majority in the State Senate, the margin might be less than it is today and it will be interesting to see how his dynamic Republican opponent, Stephanie Linares, does in head-to-head match up in his north-side, Chicago district. Illinois State House
Democrats currently hold a 71-47 super majority in the State House.
All 118 seats are up for election tonight, though only 48 are contested. Republicans would need a net gain of 13 to win an outright majority and end Michael Madigan's reign as Speaker of the House. This is unlikely. Republican minority leader, Jim Durkin, is hoping to have a net gain of at least one to break the super majority and give the Republican minority a more robust voice in state legislation.
Takeaway: Mike Madigan will remain Speaker of the House and it is unclear if he will still have his super majority or if he will lose a couple seats. We may not know for sure tonight.
In conclusion, tonight may not have a real conclusion.
Happy Election Day, everyone!]]>5 Reasons for 20-Somethings to Vote for Bruce Raunerhttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/10/5-reasons-for-20-somethings-to-vote-for-bruce-rauner/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/10/5-reasons-for-20-somethings-to-vote-for-bruce-rauner/#commentsThu, 30 Oct 2014 07:45:26 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=614broad consensus in Illinois that Gov. Pat Quinn has been a bad leader and should not get another term.
We all know the case against Quinn because we have lived through the consequences of his inept leadership:

The primary reason that Pat Quinn should not get another term is that Illinois is better than the results listed above. In some states, hampered by bad demographics, geographic disadvantages or poor access to international markets, under-performing the rest of the country is understandable. In Illinois, the 5th most populous state in the union, located at the center of the country, with vast natural resources, an internationally famous megalopolis and ideally situated for transportation of all kind, results like this are totally unacceptable. We must demand better.
Elections are always about the future. This is particularly true if you are a 20-something like me who will bear the consequences for public policy choices made today. Therefore, it is not good enough for me to explain why Pat Quinn SHOULDN'T be governor, I need to articulate why Bruce Rauner SHOULD be our next governor.
Bruce Rauner is the first candidate for Illinois governor in many years to possess the qualities and skills necessary to help Illinois achieve it's full potential.
So what makes Rauner the right person to lead the 5th largest state in the country? Here are the top 5 reasons from the perspective of a young Illinoisan:
1) Bruce Rauner is as close to incorruptible as you can get in politics
Why does this matter to a young person? Public corruption and fraud have a heavy price tag that get passed on to future generations. When state contracts include bloated promises that are to be paid by those of us who barely started working, it locks in a reality of future tax hikes that will be higher than any of our future wage increases. Using public debt to finance politically expedient programs that do not help long term development for the state passes a financial burden onto our generation and that of our children.
The recent history of Springfield is riddled with politicians who make themselves rich by passing crippling regulations in exchange for lobbyist favors and then they start law firms so private citizens have to pay them to navigate the very laws they passed in the first place. In case you haven't heard, Bruce Rauner is very wealthy. Bribes aren't going to be attractive to him. Lobbyists and lawyers can line up outside his office offering vacations, private jets and sports cars in exchange for favors; but, Rauner can laugh in their face knowing that their money is a pittance compared to his personal fortune. Seriously, who is going to buy influence with Rauner? He has every incentive to do right by the people of the state so he can get another term and no incentive to jeopardize his reputation for worldly goods that he can already buy himself.
2) You may not have to move away to find good jobs
Unlike past governors, Bruce Rauner's primary focus is to create jobs in Illinois. He is staking his legacy on his promise to generate job growth. That is great news for 20-somethings who want to stay here but can't find work to support their cost of living. Rauner's business acumen and experience give him a unique understanding of what people need to start successful small businesses. His national and international business relationships will give Illinois an inside edge over other states in drawing capital investment and getting large national companies to bring some of their jobs to our state without using tax incentives.
Rauner's economic plan is the most comprehensive of any governor in the country today and seizes on Illinois' natural advantages. While one governor can not jump start the state economy on his own, the fact that a credible leader will be presiding over the state should help calm the fears that the business community has about making investments in Illinois. If Rauner is able to jump start business growth, then not only will college grads and skilled young workers have plenty of good paying jobs to choose from, unskilled students who are still working their way through their education will have abundant opportunity as well. Getting people off welfare programs and back to work will dramatically decrease state budget deficiencies. Nothing helps a state budget faster than turning low income residents who receive state dollars into middle income residents who stop receiving those benefits and begin paying income taxes instead.
3) You can seriously consider settling down here to raise a family
Twenty-somethings think about more than just their self interest. Many of us are engaged and some already are married with young children. Where we decide to raise our families is a huge decision and one we take seriously. Many young people have decided to move to high growth states with reliably good schools because they have come to believe their children will have more opportunities and a better long term environment in which to raise a family if they move away. When you start thinking about buying a house, and the property tax and education considerations involved with that, we start thinking about all the states we might want to move too. This is especially true if you have family in another state.
Bruce Rauner's tax and education policies, if implemented, will give young families a break and make us more likely to consider staying. If Illinois is going to have a bright future, it needs young professionals and colleges grads to stay, get married, raise families, buy houses and get involved in their communities. Hopefully, a few of those families will go on to start businesses that create even more jobs and opportunity. It all starts with keeping young people from leaving the state.
4) You can be proud to be an Illinoisan again
Let's admit it, as young people, we like to live in a "cool" state. Illinois will never be as glamorous as New York or California and will never have the tropical appeal of Florida. We don't need to. We just want to be a welcoming Midwest hub of culture, creativity and prosperity. Chicago is the key to that image. If we can get students and international tourists to our biggest city, we might be able to get some of them to explore other parts of our historic state. Bruce Rauner will never be the national figure that Chris Christie has become but he can become known as the leader/champion of a revitalized Illinois. He represents a break from the past, a breathe of fresh air and a chance to rebrand this state as one the is open for business and welcoming of anyone who wants to work or visit. The improved reputation of the state will help inspire confidence in young people to not only stick around a trendy state but maybe to move back if they already left.
5) Someone who will listen to us
Most politicians don't care about 20-somethings. We don't vote in the same numbers as older voters and we don't have as much money. Bruce Rauner understands that helping the youth of the state is an investment in the future which will pay dividends. More than a year before the primary election, Bruce came to a Chicago Young Republican Happy Hour event in the loop. He shook every hand and listened intently as young person after young person came up to ask him questions and tell their story. He connected immediately with the room and was generous with his time. It's a small gesture, but many politicians ignore after-work events like this. Rauner was genuine and engaged. More importantly, Bruce has six children of his own and thinks about the what kind of state will await them in the future.
I am not writing all of this to suggest Bruce Rauner is a perfect man, with a flawless life who will save Illinois. I simply believe that who he is and what he stands for is in line with what this state needs from it's governor if young people who live here are going to have a good adult life. We should feel good about taking our chances with Bruce Rauner, because we have no chance with Pat Quinn.
If you believe, as I do, that Illinois really is a special state that has unique opportunities to capitalize on, than I hope you will agree with me that Bruce Rauner is the perfect person to lead our state out of the past decade and a half of misery and into the next generation of shared prosperity.
If you are in your 20s, you may not be able to remember a time when Illinois was a respected, relevant state in the country. Illinois can be a desirable place again, home to a booming economy with broad opportunity for people of all skill levels. Our education system can be #1 in the country. Our budget can be balanced and our taxes fair. To achieve this, we need a new leader in Springfield.
We have lived through Rod Blagojevich/Pat Quinn's administrations and know they failed to achieve these promises because their ideas were as bad as their corrupt leadership. Bruce Rauner is the credible alternative we have been looking for. His election truly would shake up Springfield in a way that would deeply disturb the established political class. If you believe Bruce can fulfill his promise of bringing back Illinois, than I ask you to not only vote for Bruce Rauner, but to vote early. Don't wait until Election Day, have your voice heard now. Early Voting is under way but Sunday is the last day to early vote. To find out where you can cast your ballot, click here if you are in Chicago, here if you live in Cook County outside Chicago, and here for information on early voting throughout the state.
If you miss early voting and are not voting absentee, then show up to your designated polling place on November 4th. Not sure where that is? Find out now!]]>broad consensus in Illinois that Gov. Pat Quinn has been a bad leader and should not get another term.
We all know the case against Quinn because we have lived through the consequences of his inept leadership:

The primary reason that Pat Quinn should not get another term is that Illinois is better than the results listed above. In some states, hampered by bad demographics, geographic disadvantages or poor access to international markets, under-performing the rest of the country is understandable. In Illinois, the 5th most populous state in the union, located at the center of the country, with vast natural resources, an internationally famous megalopolis and ideally situated for transportation of all kind, results like this are totally unacceptable. We must demand better.
Elections are always about the future. This is particularly true if you are a 20-something like me who will bear the consequences for public policy choices made today. Therefore, it is not good enough for me to explain why Pat Quinn SHOULDN'T be governor, I need to articulate why Bruce Rauner SHOULD be our next governor.
Bruce Rauner is the first candidate for Illinois governor in many years to possess the qualities and skills necessary to help Illinois achieve it's full potential.
So what makes Rauner the right person to lead the 5th largest state in the country? Here are the top 5 reasons from the perspective of a young Illinoisan:
1) Bruce Rauner is as close to incorruptible as you can get in politics
Why does this matter to a young person? Public corruption and fraud have a heavy price tag that get passed on to future generations. When state contracts include bloated promises that are to be paid by those of us who barely started working, it locks in a reality of future tax hikes that will be higher than any of our future wage increases. Using public debt to finance politically expedient programs that do not help long term development for the state passes a financial burden onto our generation and that of our children.
The recent history of Springfield is riddled with politicians who make themselves rich by passing crippling regulations in exchange for lobbyist favors and then they start law firms so private citizens have to pay them to navigate the very laws they passed in the first place. In case you haven't heard, Bruce Rauner is very wealthy. Bribes aren't going to be attractive to him. Lobbyists and lawyers can line up outside his office offering vacations, private jets and sports cars in exchange for favors; but, Rauner can laugh in their face knowing that their money is a pittance compared to his personal fortune. Seriously, who is going to buy influence with Rauner? He has every incentive to do right by the people of the state so he can get another term and no incentive to jeopardize his reputation for worldly goods that he can already buy himself.
2) You may not have to move away to find good jobs
Unlike past governors, Bruce Rauner's primary focus is to create jobs in Illinois. He is staking his legacy on his promise to generate job growth. That is great news for 20-somethings who want to stay here but can't find work to support their cost of living. Rauner's business acumen and experience give him a unique understanding of what people need to start successful small businesses. His national and international business relationships will give Illinois an inside edge over other states in drawing capital investment and getting large national companies to bring some of their jobs to our state without using tax incentives.
Rauner's economic plan is the most comprehensive of any governor in the country today and seizes on Illinois' natural advantages. While one governor can not jump start the state economy on his own, the fact that a credible leader will be presiding over the state should help calm the fears that the business community has about making investments in Illinois. If Rauner is able to jump start business growth, then not only will college grads and skilled young workers have plenty of good paying jobs to choose from, unskilled students who are still working their way through their education will have abundant opportunity as well. Getting people off welfare programs and back to work will dramatically decrease state budget deficiencies. Nothing helps a state budget faster than turning low income residents who receive state dollars into middle income residents who stop receiving those benefits and begin paying income taxes instead.
3) You can seriously consider settling down here to raise a family
Twenty-somethings think about more than just their self interest. Many of us are engaged and some already are married with young children. Where we decide to raise our families is a huge decision and one we take seriously. Many young people have decided to move to high growth states with reliably good schools because they have come to believe their children will have more opportunities and a better long term environment in which to raise a family if they move away. When you start thinking about buying a house, and the property tax and education considerations involved with that, we start thinking about all the states we might want to move too. This is especially true if you have family in another state.
Bruce Rauner's tax and education policies, if implemented, will give young families a break and make us more likely to consider staying. If Illinois is going to have a bright future, it needs young professionals and colleges grads to stay, get married, raise families, buy houses and get involved in their communities. Hopefully, a few of those families will go on to start businesses that create even more jobs and opportunity. It all starts with keeping young people from leaving the state.
4) You can be proud to be an Illinoisan again
Let's admit it, as young people, we like to live in a "cool" state. Illinois will never be as glamorous as New York or California and will never have the tropical appeal of Florida. We don't need to. We just want to be a welcoming Midwest hub of culture, creativity and prosperity. Chicago is the key to that image. If we can get students and international tourists to our biggest city, we might be able to get some of them to explore other parts of our historic state. Bruce Rauner will never be the national figure that Chris Christie has become but he can become known as the leader/champion of a revitalized Illinois. He represents a break from the past, a breathe of fresh air and a chance to rebrand this state as one the is open for business and welcoming of anyone who wants to work or visit. The improved reputation of the state will help inspire confidence in young people to not only stick around a trendy state but maybe to move back if they already left.
5) Someone who will listen to us
Most politicians don't care about 20-somethings. We don't vote in the same numbers as older voters and we don't have as much money. Bruce Rauner understands that helping the youth of the state is an investment in the future which will pay dividends. More than a year before the primary election, Bruce came to a Chicago Young Republican Happy Hour event in the loop. He shook every hand and listened intently as young person after young person came up to ask him questions and tell their story. He connected immediately with the room and was generous with his time. It's a small gesture, but many politicians ignore after-work events like this. Rauner was genuine and engaged. More importantly, Bruce has six children of his own and thinks about the what kind of state will await them in the future.
I am not writing all of this to suggest Bruce Rauner is a perfect man, with a flawless life who will save Illinois. I simply believe that who he is and what he stands for is in line with what this state needs from it's governor if young people who live here are going to have a good adult life. We should feel good about taking our chances with Bruce Rauner, because we have no chance with Pat Quinn.
If you believe, as I do, that Illinois really is a special state that has unique opportunities to capitalize on, than I hope you will agree with me that Bruce Rauner is the perfect person to lead our state out of the past decade and a half of misery and into the next generation of shared prosperity.
If you are in your 20s, you may not be able to remember a time when Illinois was a respected, relevant state in the country. Illinois can be a desirable place again, home to a booming economy with broad opportunity for people of all skill levels. Our education system can be #1 in the country. Our budget can be balanced and our taxes fair. To achieve this, we need a new leader in Springfield.
We have lived through Rod Blagojevich/Pat Quinn's administrations and know they failed to achieve these promises because their ideas were as bad as their corrupt leadership. Bruce Rauner is the credible alternative we have been looking for. His election truly would shake up Springfield in a way that would deeply disturb the established political class. If you believe Bruce can fulfill his promise of bringing back Illinois, than I ask you to not only vote for Bruce Rauner, but to vote early. Don't wait until Election Day, have your voice heard now. Early Voting is under way but Sunday is the last day to early vote. To find out where you can cast your ballot, click here if you are in Chicago, here if you live in Cook County outside Chicago, and here for information on early voting throughout the state.
If you miss early voting and are not voting absentee, then show up to your designated polling place on November 4th. Not sure where that is? Find out now!]]>State Election Matters More Than Federal This Yearhttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/10/state-election-matters-more-than-federal-this-year/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/10/state-election-matters-more-than-federal-this-year/#commentsTue, 28 Oct 2014 08:05:41 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=683A rebuttal on the Dave McKinney issuehttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/10/a-rebuttal-on-the-dave-mckinney-issue/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/10/a-rebuttal-on-the-dave-mckinney-issue/#commentsThu, 23 Oct 2014 12:05:27 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=675http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Hard-Ball-Lawsuit-Alleges-Rauner-Intimidation--278326501.html
The crux of the story is this: When Bruce Rauner, the Republican candidate for Illinois Governor, was chairman of the investment firm GTCR, he hired Christine Kirk to start a new company called LeapSource. The business struggled under Kirk's leadership with Rauner and Kirk trading accusations over who was to blame for the failures.

According to a lawsuit filed by Kirk, Rauner told another board member if Kirk sued over her firing, "I will bury her ... I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don't know if she has a family or not but if she does she better think twice about this." Rauner denies ever saying such a thing.

In her sworn deposition, Kirk alleged she was also warned by Thomas Gilman, another plaintiff along with Kirk in the lawsuit, who sat on the Board of LeapSource, saying, "Bruce had threatened" her and would make her "radioactive." Rauner denies this allegation as well.

Federal District Judge Robert Broomfield dismissed almost all of the counts of Kirk's lawsuit and neither of the plaintiffs agreed to be interviewed for the story. No one outside of the plaintiffs corroborated their accounts of what Rauner allegedly said.

Given the outcome of the lawsuit and the lack of sources willing to talk to the reporters, is there any journalistic value to this story? It is wonderful fodder for a campaign opposition researcher to craft a negative ad campaign around; but, where is the news value for the public or the voter? Essentially, the court ruled that the lawsuit was frivolous and when the reporters tried to get the plaintiffs to repeat their allegations from their depositions, they didn't want to talk about it. Then, the reporters could not find anyone else at LeapSource or GTCR to corroborate any part of the deposition statements.

Bruce Rauner's campaign was not only right to challenge the merit of publishing a poorly sourced story that served a purely political purpose but also to bring up the possible connection between this "war on women" article, its accompanying ad campaign and the wife of the reporter who essentially crafted the very concept of such a campaign.

Mr. McKinney took offense at being questioned by the Rauner campaign. After the story and subsequent ad campaign failed to gain traction with voters and move the polls, the reporter took the extraordinary step of publicly announcing the hiring a famous investigator to look into vague allegations that the Rauner campaign somehow threatened his employment with the Sun-Times. The timing of this announcement was designed to do maximum possible damage to Rauner by appearing in the press the weekend before early voting starts and prior to the final televised debate. A savvy move that a political strategist would implement.

Despite his paper standing by his flimsy story, this reporter then chooses to publicly resign in an attempt to draw even more attention to his story.

The resignation letter leaves several unanswered questions. McKinney doesn't reveal how he came across this particular lawsuit in the first place or offer an explanation as to how the Democratic opposition researchers already had it and were planning to proceed with an ad buy around it with or without the Sun Times story. If the Quinn campaign did not feed McKinney the story, why did it take the reporter and editor until October to break the story despite Rauner being a declared candidate for Illinois governor for well over a year? Why does a story like this that has been publicly accessible for years run now, when it would have maximum impact and give the candidate minimum time to respond?

When I first found out that Dave McKinney was complaining about the Rauner campaign's media tactics, my gut reaction was that he should toughen up, this is the big leagues and reporters, editors and campaign staff should have aggressive behind the scenes arguments on the merits of stories. If you can't take it, get over yourself.

Then, I had a moment of feeling bad for Dave McKinney because his spouse was getting dragged into the tussle. Once I realized who he was married too, I understood the depth of the potential conflict of interest and was irritated that the Sun Times editors didn't reveal the potential conflict in the story. I am not overly concerned that Ms. Liston would personally benefit from the story; but, her professional colleagues might and those relationships are relevant.

Then, McKinney lost any sympathy I had for him when he became a petulant child and threw a fit because someone would dare to have the audacity to question his conflict of interest...when it's what he has been doing for 20 years as a political reporter. How dare anyone suggest that his wife or her contacts in the Democratic media messaging world whose finger prints are all over the Quinn ads had any influence on McKinney's reporting or story selection. How dare we suggest that the timing was suspicious. How dare anyone question the great Dave McKinney.

Not only did he throw a fit, he did so publicly to draw more attention to himself, something journalists take pains to avoid. He is accused of a potential conflict of interest that would help Pat Quinn get re-elected, and then he defends himself...by filing a vague complaint against Bruce Rauner's campaign the weekend before early voting begins, the exact time Democratic media consultants would recommend to go public to do maximum damage to the candidate and influence the outcome of the race in favor of Quinn.

Then, to make sure the story stays alive during early voting, the reporter resigns in a public way to give the story a new 24 hour news cycle.

I hate to ruin the end of this story for those of you DVRing this show; but, now that McKinney is free from his Sun Times gig, he can continue to stoke the anti-Rauner message in as many TV, print and radio interviews as he possibly can between now and Election Day. It's what any political media strategist with an agenda to influence a race would do.

I have no sympathy for Dave McKinney. He is a big boy reporter in the political big leagues with the guts to follow his instincts and play hard ball with campaigns. He knew his marriage would raise conflict of interest questions and that no amount of paperwork would ever truly create a firewall between his work and his wife's professional life. He successfully defended his ethics to his editors and not only got them to agree to run the story, but got a boisterous defense of his professionalism from them. Instead of slipping back into the shadows to continue his work, he went out of his way to make himself the subject of the story because he decided he was too good to have to answer conflict of interest questions. His righteous indignation of having anyone dare question the obvious conflict his relationship could present is sickening (especially considering the content of this particular story and the appearance of collaboration with the Quinn campaign on a strategy to use it). He acts like the Rauner camp has it out for any journalist who writes a negative story about him; yet, they have only leveled a conflict of interest allegation against one reporter...because he is the only one with this issue.

I also have no sympathy for the Chicago Sun Times owners or editors. This story should never have run and they had no business getting back into the endorsement business after declaring they were out of it. The story was thin, had no news value and the editors should have killed it. Period. There are plenty of legitimate, credible stories regarding Bruce Rauner's professional career as an investor and business leader. This was not one of them. It should have been immediately clear to editors that this story was Democrat opposition research fodder for a campaign ad and nothing more. It didn't deserve the credibility of becoming a news story, backed by reputable reporter's byline.

If you are one of the Democrats who are reading this all the way to the end, having scoffed your way through this post because you think Rauner is a scumbag anyway and even if their was a conflict, Rauner deserved to get side swiped by journalists, I have a warning for you. Do we really want a political environment where journalists work arm-in-arm with campaigns to coordinate messaging and influence elections without consideration of news value? Do we want the referees to decide winners and losers? Democrats might take their chances opening that door in this election; but, don't assume all journalists would take your side in future races. If the umpires decide to pick a side, they are under no obligation to pick yours. We are all better served with them calling balls and strikes rather than trying to run the bases.

Whether or not the story was motivated by partisanship or relationships we may never know, but McKinney's subsequent, deliberate attempts to keep the story going and focus on himself certainly adds to the perception that he wants to influence the outcome of the election. Unfortunately, it appears Dave McKinney started running the bases before he took off his umpire uniform and the Sun Times editors let it happen.

Hopefully, this episode and the story that started it do not influence voter's decision on the race for Illinois governor. Based on the latest Chicago Tribune poll, it certainly seems voters, especially women, have dismissed it as part of their decision making process in this race.

]]>http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Hard-Ball-Lawsuit-Alleges-Rauner-Intimidation--278326501.html
The crux of the story is this: When Bruce Rauner, the Republican candidate for Illinois Governor, was chairman of the investment firm GTCR, he hired Christine Kirk to start a new company called LeapSource. The business struggled under Kirk's leadership with Rauner and Kirk trading accusations over who was to blame for the failures.

According to a lawsuit filed by Kirk, Rauner told another board member if Kirk sued over her firing, "I will bury her ... I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don't know if she has a family or not but if she does she better think twice about this." Rauner denies ever saying such a thing.

In her sworn deposition, Kirk alleged she was also warned by Thomas Gilman, another plaintiff along with Kirk in the lawsuit, who sat on the Board of LeapSource, saying, "Bruce had threatened" her and would make her "radioactive." Rauner denies this allegation as well.

Federal District Judge Robert Broomfield dismissed almost all of the counts of Kirk's lawsuit and neither of the plaintiffs agreed to be interviewed for the story. No one outside of the plaintiffs corroborated their accounts of what Rauner allegedly said.

Given the outcome of the lawsuit and the lack of sources willing to talk to the reporters, is there any journalistic value to this story? It is wonderful fodder for a campaign opposition researcher to craft a negative ad campaign around; but, where is the news value for the public or the voter? Essentially, the court ruled that the lawsuit was frivolous and when the reporters tried to get the plaintiffs to repeat their allegations from their depositions, they didn't want to talk about it. Then, the reporters could not find anyone else at LeapSource or GTCR to corroborate any part of the deposition statements.

Bruce Rauner's campaign was not only right to challenge the merit of publishing a poorly sourced story that served a purely political purpose but also to bring up the possible connection between this "war on women" article, its accompanying ad campaign and the wife of the reporter who essentially crafted the very concept of such a campaign.

Mr. McKinney took offense at being questioned by the Rauner campaign. After the story and subsequent ad campaign failed to gain traction with voters and move the polls, the reporter took the extraordinary step of publicly announcing the hiring a famous investigator to look into vague allegations that the Rauner campaign somehow threatened his employment with the Sun-Times. The timing of this announcement was designed to do maximum possible damage to Rauner by appearing in the press the weekend before early voting starts and prior to the final televised debate. A savvy move that a political strategist would implement.

Despite his paper standing by his flimsy story, this reporter then chooses to publicly resign in an attempt to draw even more attention to his story.

The resignation letter leaves several unanswered questions. McKinney doesn't reveal how he came across this particular lawsuit in the first place or offer an explanation as to how the Democratic opposition researchers already had it and were planning to proceed with an ad buy around it with or without the Sun Times story. If the Quinn campaign did not feed McKinney the story, why did it take the reporter and editor until October to break the story despite Rauner being a declared candidate for Illinois governor for well over a year? Why does a story like this that has been publicly accessible for years run now, when it would have maximum impact and give the candidate minimum time to respond?

When I first found out that Dave McKinney was complaining about the Rauner campaign's media tactics, my gut reaction was that he should toughen up, this is the big leagues and reporters, editors and campaign staff should have aggressive behind the scenes arguments on the merits of stories. If you can't take it, get over yourself.

Then, I had a moment of feeling bad for Dave McKinney because his spouse was getting dragged into the tussle. Once I realized who he was married too, I understood the depth of the potential conflict of interest and was irritated that the Sun Times editors didn't reveal the potential conflict in the story. I am not overly concerned that Ms. Liston would personally benefit from the story; but, her professional colleagues might and those relationships are relevant.

Then, McKinney lost any sympathy I had for him when he became a petulant child and threw a fit because someone would dare to have the audacity to question his conflict of interest...when it's what he has been doing for 20 years as a political reporter. How dare anyone suggest that his wife or her contacts in the Democratic media messaging world whose finger prints are all over the Quinn ads had any influence on McKinney's reporting or story selection. How dare we suggest that the timing was suspicious. How dare anyone question the great Dave McKinney.

Not only did he throw a fit, he did so publicly to draw more attention to himself, something journalists take pains to avoid. He is accused of a potential conflict of interest that would help Pat Quinn get re-elected, and then he defends himself...by filing a vague complaint against Bruce Rauner's campaign the weekend before early voting begins, the exact time Democratic media consultants would recommend to go public to do maximum damage to the candidate and influence the outcome of the race in favor of Quinn.

Then, to make sure the story stays alive during early voting, the reporter resigns in a public way to give the story a new 24 hour news cycle.

I hate to ruin the end of this story for those of you DVRing this show; but, now that McKinney is free from his Sun Times gig, he can continue to stoke the anti-Rauner message in as many TV, print and radio interviews as he possibly can between now and Election Day. It's what any political media strategist with an agenda to influence a race would do.

I have no sympathy for Dave McKinney. He is a big boy reporter in the political big leagues with the guts to follow his instincts and play hard ball with campaigns. He knew his marriage would raise conflict of interest questions and that no amount of paperwork would ever truly create a firewall between his work and his wife's professional life. He successfully defended his ethics to his editors and not only got them to agree to run the story, but got a boisterous defense of his professionalism from them. Instead of slipping back into the shadows to continue his work, he went out of his way to make himself the subject of the story because he decided he was too good to have to answer conflict of interest questions. His righteous indignation of having anyone dare question the obvious conflict his relationship could present is sickening (especially considering the content of this particular story and the appearance of collaboration with the Quinn campaign on a strategy to use it). He acts like the Rauner camp has it out for any journalist who writes a negative story about him; yet, they have only leveled a conflict of interest allegation against one reporter...because he is the only one with this issue.

I also have no sympathy for the Chicago Sun Times owners or editors. This story should never have run and they had no business getting back into the endorsement business after declaring they were out of it. The story was thin, had no news value and the editors should have killed it. Period. There are plenty of legitimate, credible stories regarding Bruce Rauner's professional career as an investor and business leader. This was not one of them. It should have been immediately clear to editors that this story was Democrat opposition research fodder for a campaign ad and nothing more. It didn't deserve the credibility of becoming a news story, backed by reputable reporter's byline.

If you are one of the Democrats who are reading this all the way to the end, having scoffed your way through this post because you think Rauner is a scumbag anyway and even if their was a conflict, Rauner deserved to get side swiped by journalists, I have a warning for you. Do we really want a political environment where journalists work arm-in-arm with campaigns to coordinate messaging and influence elections without consideration of news value? Do we want the referees to decide winners and losers? Democrats might take their chances opening that door in this election; but, don't assume all journalists would take your side in future races. If the umpires decide to pick a side, they are under no obligation to pick yours. We are all better served with them calling balls and strikes rather than trying to run the bases.

Whether or not the story was motivated by partisanship or relationships we may never know, but McKinney's subsequent, deliberate attempts to keep the story going and focus on himself certainly adds to the perception that he wants to influence the outcome of the election. Unfortunately, it appears Dave McKinney started running the bases before he took off his umpire uniform and the Sun Times editors let it happen.

Hopefully, this episode and the story that started it do not influence voter's decision on the race for Illinois governor. Based on the latest Chicago Tribune poll, it certainly seems voters, especially women, have dismissed it as part of their decision making process in this race.

]]>A Vote for Grimm is a Vote for Quinn. Choose Rauner for Reform. http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/10/a-vote-for-grimm-is-a-vote-for-quinn-choose-rauner-for-reform/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/10/a-vote-for-grimm-is-a-vote-for-quinn-choose-rauner-for-reform/#commentsTue, 14 Oct 2014 07:45:18 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=667 poll released this weekend not only shows that Pat Quinn has a lead in the race for Illinois governor but also that the Libertarian Party candidate is earning 7% of the statewide vote, more than enough to block Bruce Rauner's path to victory.
The Libertarian Party candidate, Chad Grimm, is the only third party candidate who made it on the ballot for Illinois governor this year. Pat Quinn's campaign successfully knocked the Green Party candidate off the ballot. Thus, for voters who have grown to dislike both major party candidates, there is only one person on the ballot who can get all the protest votes. In a close race, where the consequences of the outcome are monumental and the future course of the state hangs in the balance, there is no excuse for protest votes. We have an incumbent and one credible alternative. A vote for anyone else in this case, is a tacit, reckless endorsement of the status quo.
Chad Grimm is one of the least qualified people to ever seek high office in Illinois. Scott Lee Cohen holds that title for now, but Grimm is not far behind. Grimm has no meaningful leadership experience of any kind in business, society, politics or community. He previously ran for office in his hometown of Peoria and was rejected by the voters who know him best...twice. His only real talent seems to be amateur level acting, which explains why he wants to draw attention to himself despite having nothing important to say. His own campaign website doesn't bother to articulate his position on any important issue. In media interviews and op-eds, he says he will end state pensions for workers, but doesn't explain how. He told Chicago Magazine that he would close various state agencies; but, failed to name one example. His distinguishing issues seem to be that he is pro-life (though doesn't explain what they means) and he will legalize marijuana in Illinois (doesn't get into specifics). Because apparently abortion and weed are far bigger challenges in Illinois than upside down budgets, terrible credit ratings or economic stagnation?
This is not a serious campaign and Grimm is not worthy of a single vote in this particular race. He offers no meaningful ideas, no practical solutions and no bold, new proposals. I have nothing against the Illinois Libertarian Party, but if you are going to run a candidate for governor, at least make sure they have qualifications, a platform and a rationale. It would also help if they were a real libertarian.
For as awful a candidate as Chad Grimm is, he is not the real problem. Anyone who votes for him is.
In theory, anyone who is in the 7% who say they will vote for Grimm are opposed to the status quo and do not support Pat Quinn as governor. A majority of the state seems to be in agreement that Quinn is not worthy of another term. However, those 7% want to vote for an alternative and for whatever reason, Bruce Rauner does not appeal to them.
I believe in Bruce Rauner's potential to dramatically change the course of public policy and governance in Illinois for the better. I will go into more detail in the coming weeks as to why I believe in Bruce, especially as a young person. For now, I understand that Rauner still needs to sell himself to those disgruntled voters who don't want Pat Quinn but would rather lodge a protest vote than vote for him. I hope he is persuasive in tonight's debate and upcoming public appearances.
Let's make one thing clear: voting for Grimm is not a protest vote. It's a vote for Pat Quinn.
There is a reason the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 donated $30,000 to him. Grimm might as well be a Pat Quinn union guy.
Bruce Rauner is the only viable alternative to Pat Quinn in this race. Grimm, and curmudgeons like him, pout when they claim that there is no difference between Quinn and Rauner. The truth is that there is a world of difference between the incumbent who will sell out the state's future to present day union bosses/special interest groups and a political outsider who is thinking about how to put public unions/special interests in their place and get them out of the way of economic growth for the future. There is a huge difference between a corrupt, life long politician who hires political workers into state jobs and hands out taxpayer dollars to political allies and a businessman who has dedicated his life to growing businesses so that the middle class has more opportunities to be honorably hired into the work force. Quinn stands for restricting school choice while Rauner wants every child to have a fair chance at a life-changing education. If Grimm can't recognize the difference, it's because he isn't paying attention.
Bruce Rauner is a real break from the past and the polar opposite of Pat Quinn and his policies.
Chad Grimm is not a viable alternative to Quinn, not only because he has no chance of winning, but because he offers no alternative vision for Illinois. Any votes for Grimm are simply cynical people voting to accept the status quo out of a sense of misguided hopelessness. It is not a vote for change, for a new vision or for reform. Quinn's votes are coming from the politically connected who use government as an ATM to rip off the unconnected and enrich themselves at the expense of the common man or woman. Those of us who do not hold such selfish views and want shared prosperity can not afford to split our votes, we have to focus them on one candidate so we can overcome the united Democratic front.
For pro-life voters who are frustrated that Bruce Rauner has marginalized the issue of abortion in his campaign and buy Grimm's self proclaimed pro-life illusion, ask yourself this: If voting for Grimm costs Rauner votes and helps get hardcore pro-choice Pat Quinn re-elected, why would you want to caste a vote that has the effect of helping Pat Quinn expand public access for elective abortions? Further, what does Grimm mean by pro-life? Is he opposed to abortions in all cases, including rape and incest? Would he seek prosecution of physicians who perform abortions? What specific legislation or executive actions does he support to restrict access to or public funding of abortions? Or is Grimm a deceptive, opportunist putting on an act to lure cultural conservative votes away from Pat Quinn's real challenger?
Bruce Rauner may not be the top choice for cultural conservatives; but, he is a lot better than the alternative, Pat Quinn. Of the two choices we have, Rauner is clearly more inline with conservative principles. It is better to vote for someone you generally agree with than to throw away your vote on a charlatan and help someone who primarily advocates views completely opposite of your own.
Voting for Chad Grimm is voting against the only person in this race who can offer Illinois some glimmer of hope, Bruce Rauner.
If you are thinking about voting for Grimm, please visit his website, search his media interviews and do your homework on him. I know you will find that he is a hollow, empty, joke of a candidate unworthy of your valuable support. Take another look at Bruce Rauner. Watch the upcoming debates, read his policy initiatives and spend some time on his website. If you still can't bring yourself to fully support him by Election Day, consider casting your protest vote against Quinn for him instead of Chad Grimm. At least your vote will go toward a highly qualified leader who has a vision and a plan.
Bruce Rauner is the only real alternative to Pat Quinn.
It will be embarrassing enough if our state re-elects Quinn. Let's not humiliate ourselves any further by having him win by a plurality because frustrated citizens lodged protest votes for the unqualified guy who ran for governor without a plan as some kind of sick prank.
Scott Lee Cohen costing Bill Brady the 2010 election was a bad joke. Chad Grimm costing Bruce Rauner this race would be a tragedy in which we all suffer.]]> poll released this weekend not only shows that Pat Quinn has a lead in the race for Illinois governor but also that the Libertarian Party candidate is earning 7% of the statewide vote, more than enough to block Bruce Rauner's path to victory.
The Libertarian Party candidate, Chad Grimm, is the only third party candidate who made it on the ballot for Illinois governor this year. Pat Quinn's campaign successfully knocked the Green Party candidate off the ballot. Thus, for voters who have grown to dislike both major party candidates, there is only one person on the ballot who can get all the protest votes. In a close race, where the consequences of the outcome are monumental and the future course of the state hangs in the balance, there is no excuse for protest votes. We have an incumbent and one credible alternative. A vote for anyone else in this case, is a tacit, reckless endorsement of the status quo.
Chad Grimm is one of the least qualified people to ever seek high office in Illinois. Scott Lee Cohen holds that title for now, but Grimm is not far behind. Grimm has no meaningful leadership experience of any kind in business, society, politics or community. He previously ran for office in his hometown of Peoria and was rejected by the voters who know him best...twice. His only real talent seems to be amateur level acting, which explains why he wants to draw attention to himself despite having nothing important to say. His own campaign website doesn't bother to articulate his position on any important issue. In media interviews and op-eds, he says he will end state pensions for workers, but doesn't explain how. He told Chicago Magazine that he would close various state agencies; but, failed to name one example. His distinguishing issues seem to be that he is pro-life (though doesn't explain what they means) and he will legalize marijuana in Illinois (doesn't get into specifics). Because apparently abortion and weed are far bigger challenges in Illinois than upside down budgets, terrible credit ratings or economic stagnation?
This is not a serious campaign and Grimm is not worthy of a single vote in this particular race. He offers no meaningful ideas, no practical solutions and no bold, new proposals. I have nothing against the Illinois Libertarian Party, but if you are going to run a candidate for governor, at least make sure they have qualifications, a platform and a rationale. It would also help if they were a real libertarian.
For as awful a candidate as Chad Grimm is, he is not the real problem. Anyone who votes for him is.
In theory, anyone who is in the 7% who say they will vote for Grimm are opposed to the status quo and do not support Pat Quinn as governor. A majority of the state seems to be in agreement that Quinn is not worthy of another term. However, those 7% want to vote for an alternative and for whatever reason, Bruce Rauner does not appeal to them.
I believe in Bruce Rauner's potential to dramatically change the course of public policy and governance in Illinois for the better. I will go into more detail in the coming weeks as to why I believe in Bruce, especially as a young person. For now, I understand that Rauner still needs to sell himself to those disgruntled voters who don't want Pat Quinn but would rather lodge a protest vote than vote for him. I hope he is persuasive in tonight's debate and upcoming public appearances.
Let's make one thing clear: voting for Grimm is not a protest vote. It's a vote for Pat Quinn.
There is a reason the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 donated $30,000 to him. Grimm might as well be a Pat Quinn union guy.
Bruce Rauner is the only viable alternative to Pat Quinn in this race. Grimm, and curmudgeons like him, pout when they claim that there is no difference between Quinn and Rauner. The truth is that there is a world of difference between the incumbent who will sell out the state's future to present day union bosses/special interest groups and a political outsider who is thinking about how to put public unions/special interests in their place and get them out of the way of economic growth for the future. There is a huge difference between a corrupt, life long politician who hires political workers into state jobs and hands out taxpayer dollars to political allies and a businessman who has dedicated his life to growing businesses so that the middle class has more opportunities to be honorably hired into the work force. Quinn stands for restricting school choice while Rauner wants every child to have a fair chance at a life-changing education. If Grimm can't recognize the difference, it's because he isn't paying attention.
Bruce Rauner is a real break from the past and the polar opposite of Pat Quinn and his policies.
Chad Grimm is not a viable alternative to Quinn, not only because he has no chance of winning, but because he offers no alternative vision for Illinois. Any votes for Grimm are simply cynical people voting to accept the status quo out of a sense of misguided hopelessness. It is not a vote for change, for a new vision or for reform. Quinn's votes are coming from the politically connected who use government as an ATM to rip off the unconnected and enrich themselves at the expense of the common man or woman. Those of us who do not hold such selfish views and want shared prosperity can not afford to split our votes, we have to focus them on one candidate so we can overcome the united Democratic front.
For pro-life voters who are frustrated that Bruce Rauner has marginalized the issue of abortion in his campaign and buy Grimm's self proclaimed pro-life illusion, ask yourself this: If voting for Grimm costs Rauner votes and helps get hardcore pro-choice Pat Quinn re-elected, why would you want to caste a vote that has the effect of helping Pat Quinn expand public access for elective abortions? Further, what does Grimm mean by pro-life? Is he opposed to abortions in all cases, including rape and incest? Would he seek prosecution of physicians who perform abortions? What specific legislation or executive actions does he support to restrict access to or public funding of abortions? Or is Grimm a deceptive, opportunist putting on an act to lure cultural conservative votes away from Pat Quinn's real challenger?
Bruce Rauner may not be the top choice for cultural conservatives; but, he is a lot better than the alternative, Pat Quinn. Of the two choices we have, Rauner is clearly more inline with conservative principles. It is better to vote for someone you generally agree with than to throw away your vote on a charlatan and help someone who primarily advocates views completely opposite of your own.
Voting for Chad Grimm is voting against the only person in this race who can offer Illinois some glimmer of hope, Bruce Rauner.
If you are thinking about voting for Grimm, please visit his website, search his media interviews and do your homework on him. I know you will find that he is a hollow, empty, joke of a candidate unworthy of your valuable support. Take another look at Bruce Rauner. Watch the upcoming debates, read his policy initiatives and spend some time on his website. If you still can't bring yourself to fully support him by Election Day, consider casting your protest vote against Quinn for him instead of Chad Grimm. At least your vote will go toward a highly qualified leader who has a vision and a plan.
Bruce Rauner is the only real alternative to Pat Quinn.
It will be embarrassing enough if our state re-elects Quinn. Let's not humiliate ourselves any further by having him win by a plurality because frustrated citizens lodged protest votes for the unqualified guy who ran for governor without a plan as some kind of sick prank.
Scott Lee Cohen costing Bill Brady the 2010 election was a bad joke. Chad Grimm costing Bruce Rauner this race would be a tragedy in which we all suffer.]]>Offensive Liberalism http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/08/offensive-liberalism/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/08/offensive-liberalism/#commentsTue, 26 Aug 2014 06:35:26 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=657A Conservative Conundrum http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/08/a-conservative-conundrum/
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2014/08/a-conservative-conundrum/#commentsFri, 22 Aug 2014 08:05:03 -0500Brian Matoshttp://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/?p=654